Tag Archives: Ten Things

Following on from my rants about movie hair, “found footage” films and Zack Snyder the fourth entry in this series is about (drum roll please. . . ) what I hate at the CINEMA! Indeed, as this blog will testify I love the cinema and I LOVE FILMS!! As often affirmed I am not a religious person yet the cinema is the closest I get to a place of worship for me. However, there are some things I HATE about the cinema-going experience, so, I thought it would be fun to have a rant about it. I mean it’s easy disrespecting things you DON’T like such as: politicians, minor celebrities, cancer, self-service checkout machines, war, Piers Morgan and death! But how about having a go at something I DO like. So, here goes! Ten things I hate about the cinema. Enjoy!

#1 – PEOPLE

People generally piss me off at the cinema. I am a reasonably thoughtful person but when I go to the cinema I become a very selfish. I basically start to hate people. Especially if they are: in the way, talking, in the queue, in the toilet and breathing. I recall when I was a student, I loved going to the cinema for the first screening of the day because there was hardly anyone about. One of my greatest memories is when I saw The Shadow (1994) starring Alec Baldwin. THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE SCREENING at ALL!! That was my idea of heaven. Not a great film but a wonderful cinema memory.

#2 – TALKING

People who chat during the film SHOULD BE banned forever! In fact a law should be introduced that there’s NO talking from the trailers onwards. If you do you are forcibly removed from the screening room. I go to the cinema to escape reality; YOU or YOUR MATE’S voice-words are reality so SHUT THE FUCK UP! If you want to have a conversation piss-off to a pub or a shop or a busy road and PLAY IN THE TRAFFIC. Anywhere but the cinema I am in!

#3 – PHONES

Dear People, who use their phones at the cinema: see above! You ARE CUNTS!

#4 – CONFECTIONERY

ALL CONFECTIONERY SHOULD BE BANNED WHEN THE FILM STARTS. The rustling and crisping and slurping is TOO annoying for words. What is it with the cinema and NOT eating beforehand!? Eat BEFORE! I guess there’s some Freudian reason for stuffing over-priced popcorn, sugar and crisps into your gobs in the dark. If it’s an action-based film it’s not so bad as the sound of the film will drown it out. But in a drama which is character and dialogue based then the opening and rustling of packets drives me mad; especially when the people TRY TO BE QUIET! By trying to be quiet in a dead silent environment only heightens the noise you mug!

#5 – COST

While we’re on the subject of food, let’s face it: the price of popcorn is ridiculous. At present inflation is at an all-time low but NOT for cinema food. For what you get POPCORN is more expensive than COCAINE! And cocaine’s probably better for you. The price of food and drink at the cinema makes motorway service station prices look like Poundland. Also, I’ve seen a growing trend of so-called shopping ‘tasters’ at the ice cream stand. These cheapskates should be shot!! If you don’t know what the taste of cold-processed-sugared-crap is by now then just die! IT TASTES OF CHEMICALS and SUGAR!

#6 – PUNCTUALITY

GET TO THE FILM ON FUCKING TIME! I’ve made it on time! I am comfortable and have to get up, or have my view blocked, because you’re late. You shouldn’t be allowed in; especially if the film has started! There’s no excuse people – NO EXCUSE!

JOHN CLEESE CLOCKWISE 01/05/1986 CT2186

#7 – TRAILERS!

More and more trailers are just a summary of the WHOLE film! This is lazy! An example of a terrible trailer was a film called Fast Girls (2012) which essentially gave the WHOLE PLOT away in chronological order. Even Oscar winners Spotlight (2015) and Argo (2012) chose key dialogue scenes which span out the spine of the film and left nothing to the experience. I also lament the loss of the Voiceover Guy. I loved that guy; he really raised the sense of suspense or horror. To me a trailer should suggest and create intrigue rather give away the story or even mislead the audience. Indeed, the trailer for Sweeney Todd (2007) had NO musical numbers in it even though IT WAS A MUSICAL! Now HERE’S A PROPER TRAILER!

#8 – HEGEMONY

I like a decent blockbuster but the hegemonic domination of the multiplexes means smaller films don’t often get a chance. I used to love repertory cinemas such as the Scala in King’s Cross (which is now a nightclub and live music venue) but alas these cinemas are a dying breed. We do have Prince Charles which is great but even some independents are NOT truly independent like the PICTUREHOUSE chain, as they are owned by Cineworld. I’m probably just being nostalgic for a non-capitalist dream but it just irks me when a Marvel or Disney film is released on ALL the screens at the same time and smaller films vanish rapidly; lost in the huge capitalist machine that is greed.

#9 – ADVERTISING

Slowly but surely a film programme is getting longer and longer!! Showtime is advertised at 7.00pm but the film doesn’t start until fucking midnight. I’ve paid NOT to see adverts! To me it should be THREE adverts and THREE trailers and that’s it!! Plus the adverts get shown AFTER the TRAILERS too – THERE’S NO ESCAPE! I accept adverts, like politics, are a necessary evil in society but they’re STILL EVIL! If I pay £13 for a cinema ticket I’ve paid for the privilege of NOT being eye-punched to death by advertising. The amount of advertising actually makes me nostalgic for Pearl & Dean. Oh, for the good old days!

#10 – NOT THE CINEMA!

Basically, I know people are broke and the cinema is expensive but if you watch a BIG BLOCKBUSTER film on an illegal download – THEN YOU HAVEN’T SEEN IT!! I realise Hollywood isn’t going broke anytime soon and you’re probably NOT funding terrorism but you are disrespecting the cinema – so GO TO THE CINEMA!! Just don’t do any of the above THINGS I’ve listed above, and as long as you don’t go when I go, then go watch a movie where it’s meant to be seen! Not on an Iphone or a Tablet but at THE CINEMA! OBEY!

As a balding man I felt it my duty to raise my concerns about the desperately poor wig-work that has occurred down the years in the movies. The wigs, actors chosen suck because they are so appalling and the filmmakers should have let the actor go natural to avoid discriminatory practices against baldies.

Obviously, for sci-fi, historical, and comedy films wigs are used in context and for humorous purposes so I have generally avoided picking on those but for the examples used there is NO EXCUSE! They are a travesty and deeply hurtful to the bald community. As Larry David says: Baldism is a proper thing.

10. IT LOOKS STUPID!

Okay, I understand certain characters require wigs especially if they wore them in real life like Phil Spector as played recently by Al Pacino but generally Movie Wigs look dumb. It’s fine if it’s in the context of the character such as American Hustle (2013) where Bale’s character was shown to be vain but when an actor has what looks like a ferret stapled to his or her head then I’m thinking less of the movie as I’m too busy laughing at it.

9. IT’S DISCRIMINATION!

I started watching the decent-enough movie TransSiberian (2008) on Netflix and Woody Harrelson’s character is wearing an obvious wig. Harrelson has played some fine bald heroes in his time most notably in the brilliant Zombieland (2009) but he’s let us right down in this movie. His character was a nice guy in it so by giving him a syrup and spectacles are they saying that bald people cannot be pleasant and easy-going. Either cast an actor with hair or don’t. It’s baldist! Come on Woody – you SHOULD know better.

8. WHAT HAPPENED TO TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT?

So I was watching a very disappointing blockbuster film about a massive lizard and I was so disconnected with the lack of characterisation or suspense I got distracted by the usually brilliant Bryan Cranston and his appalling wig! Why not allow let the character have a natural hairstyle of the actor? Are they saying a character with a receding hairline or a bald character is less sympathetic? All that money spent on special effects and incredible looking giant monsters in Godzilla (2014) and his hair-piece was so unconvincing I was embarrassed. Mind you not as unconvincing as the script.

7. KING OF THE WIGS – NICOLAS CAGE

I can’t stand wigs and plastic surgery and Cage seems to have had his fair share of both. It’s vanity gone mad. Unless of course you have a tragic disfigurement or burns I see no reason to alter your body or face in ANY way via artificial means! If you need to lose weight go on a diet don’t use liposuction. If you are bald don’t get a rat transplant on your bonce just deal with it. The worst hair-cut he ever had was arguably in the terrific prison-escape blockbuster Con Air (1997). While the mullet had a certain magnetic quality it, in my opinion, it was laughable and took the piss really.

Anyway, Cage — on his day — is an outstanding actor but he has been in some really sorry old tosh like Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011). Here’s a guy who could be a hero to all baldies everywhere with his receding locks so why not allow his characters have Cage’s natural barnet. His lack of locks worked well in Adaptation (2002) as it added to low-status nature of one of the brothers but this was an exception to the rule.6. BALD PEOPLE DEHUMANIZED AS THE BAD GUY!

Look all the villains over the years who have been bald: Lex Luthor, Voldemort, Ming The Merciless, John Doe (from Se7en), Bane, Gru, Don Logan, Darth Maul, The Baldies from The Wanderers (1979) and many more. Choosing someone who is follicly-challenged is an easy shorthand and detrimental to the humanization of bald people all over the world. We are not villains. We are humans – just because we don’t have hair it doesn’t make us bad people. We have feelings you know.

5. THE BALD UNTRUTH! – JOHN TRAVOLTA

Why use wigs? Why can’t the character be bald – does it make them any less of a human being?! At the very least why collude in the fact the character has real hair. Try and be inventive with the syrups. John Travolta has worn some horrific fringes in his time but at no stage does he send this part of his being up or make it part of the characterisation. In Wild Hogs (2007) — a film about mid-life crises he spends most of it in a bandana rather than embracing his lack of hair. Fair play in the dreadful From Paris With Love (2010) he is bald but he still has a compensatory goatee to take the bald sheen away from the role.

4. UNINTENTIONAL HUMOUR

I’m just going to say one word: Surrogates (2009). This Bruce Willis sci-fi thriller is a dog of a film and the syrups are hilarious. Humans are essentially lock-ins and rarely go out. Instead they live their lives through virtual reality surrogates. It’s not a bad idea and contains a reasonable social comment on technology displacing actual physical and emotional contact. The problem I have with the film is the human version of Willis is bald whereas the computer version has hair. So basically, Willis’ preferred setting is having hair. Why couldn’t it be the other way round!! Plus the haircut is an absolute joke; much like the film as a whole. Bruce Willis is a flag-bearing hero to all bald men and he has worn some dodgy wigs in his time but this is the most monstrous blot on his career.

3. BAD HAIRPIECES DEVALUE THE PRODUCTION

Films are SO expensive to make you would think they could spend a bit more of an effort to make the hairpieces more realistic. Some films — even historical dramas like Lincoln (2013) — have incredible sets, amazing actors and a cast of thousands but when it comes to the syrups the whole thing falls down. I found Lincoln a tough watch anyway as it was SO boring. Has anyone actually watched this film and enjoyed it? Anyway, despite a ponderous story the incredible production is let down by wigs so ridiculous they act as a Brechtian distanciation device and consistently remind us we are watching a movie. I realise that movie God Spielberg may have been going for authenticity but it backfires in Lincoln and the wigs are an embarrassment.

2. IF THEY HAVE HAIR – WHY ARE THEY WEARING A SYRUP?

The worst thing is when the actor actually has hair and they STILL put a hair-piece on them. It’s a travesty really because they could have cast a bald person in the role and given them a leg up in the vanity-led industry that is Hollywood. Or at the very least use the actors real hair and style it accordingly. If the film covers a number of years then for additional realism they should shoot the film in order as the hair grows. The biggest culprit for this is Oliver Stone. He has made some magnificent films but his career is littered with crimes against bald people. Just have a gander at these monstrosities:

1. HAIL THE BALD HEROES!

We shall fight them in the barbers, the make-up chairs and film & sets. Hail the heroes carrying the fight against the vain, unreal and plastic harbingers of doom! Stand proud the hairless and bald! Fight the good fight to the last strand!